It is my great pleasure
to have been given the opportunity, as President of the Republic
of Croatia, to be your guest and to address the parliamentarians
of the first political organisation to be created after the horrors
of the second world war in order to preserve and promote individual
freedoms, political freedom and the rule of law, the fundamental
values of genuine democracy, and political pluralism. Today, fifty-
one years after its foundation, we are aware that the Council of
Europe is the most European political organisation on our continent.
Almost all European states have become its members and thereby accepted
the commitment to foster and disseminate our common values. One
of the greatest examples of the noble activities of the Council
of Europe was the adoption of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the fiftieth anniversary
of which we will mark in November.

Let us be candid and admit that in spite of the optimism inherent
in human beings, few believed that the Council of Europe would undergo
such a swift transformation from a cold war institution into a forum
for dialogue between the East and the West, and, eventually, into
a truly pan-European organisation. We have thereby come close to
fulfilling the wishes of the great British statesman, Sir Winston
Churchill, who in 1946 publicly asked himself, “And why should there
not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and
common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and
mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place
with other groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men?”

The openness, generosity and perseverance of the Council of
Europe ought to be a model for other European political organisations.
In particular, I have in mind the European Union, within which there
is undoubtedly awareness of the necessity to accept new members,
but there are also, for economic and other reasons, those who oppose
expansion to include some former socialist states on our continent.
I am convinced that partial solutions, such as the admission of
only some countries to the European Union, would represent a major injustice
to the already long-suffering nations at the rim of western Europe.
Indeed, I believe that all states which have seriously taken the
road towards comprehensive Europeanisation should be given a genuine prospect
of association with the European Union – a political, economic and
defensive union in which small nations will have their place and
be able to contribute to the common cause.

The openness, generosity and perseverance of the Council of Europe ought to be a model for other European political organisations.

Among the countries that have seriously tackled that challenging
project, I can without hesitation include Croatia, whose road to
fully fledged membership of the national community has been, as
we are all aware, extremely hard. Let us remember Tito's Yugoslavia.
As one of the six republics of the Yugoslav Federation, Croatia
decided to turn its back on communist ideology and socialist self-management
and to transform its society along the model of western European
democracy and market economy. However, the hegemonic and nationalist
forces in Belgrade opposed Croatia’s freedom-loving aspirations,
and then resorted to armed aggression. At that time we already knew
that its aim was not the preservation of Yugoslavia, but the creation of
an “ethnically clean” greater Serbia – an insane, uncivilised and,
fortunately, failed project. The war imposed by the Yugoslav national
army and the Belgrade leadership, the temporary loss of one third
of our national territory, the massive ethnic cleansing, the unfortunate
conflict between the Croats and the Bosnians and the provision for
hundreds of thousands of refugees – a huge number of casualties
– have significantly slowed down the process of democratic transformation
and thwarted the healthy economic transformation of Croatia. My
last visit to the Council of Europe, in 1993, in my capacity as
Speaker of the Croatian Parliament, reflected all of the complexity
of the situation in Croatia at that time.

With major efforts, our country has nevertheless succeeded
in emerging from the armed conflict as a victor. With the establishment
of territorial integrity – a process which took seven years – the
conditions were finally created for the liberalisation of Croatian
society. Unfortunately, the former Croatian Government did not have the
strength – perhaps not even the will – to promote further democratisation
of society and the economic reforms so badly needed by the impoverished
and long- suffering Croatian population. The parliamentary and presidential
elections in January and February have shown that Croatia’s citizens
are not prepared to follow a path focused on the past. Instead,
they have shown that they look to the future. They have clearly
expressed then- wish for a rapid implementation of urgent social
and economic reforms, thereby demonstrating the vast democratic
potential of the country. They have shown that they want a European
Croatia – a Croatia of tolerance, human rights, prosperity and economic
growth.

I feel great pride in the fact that the citizens of my country
are ready to bear the burden of such a challenging and comprehensive
economic and social transformation. Unfortunately, the restructuring
of the economy will initially result in considerable lay-offs; later,
however, it will certainly generate new jobs and a more advanced working
environment. The Croatian Government is well aware of the gravity
of this unrewarding and unpopular task. It is well aware that the
development of a modem and efficient economy is correlated with
the continued and successful democratic transformation of its country.
Only prosperous societies, or those promising to become prosperous,
can be a sound foundation for the strengthening of democratic order
and the rule of law, as well as a barrier against political extremism.

In that regard, Croatia counts on foreign assistance – and
that needs no particular emphasis. Although it does not suffer privation,
Croatia will require the knowledge and the capital of foreign partners
and international organisations to ensure a fast and efficient transformation
of its economy. I want to use this occasion to point out that Croatia
expects neither charity nor gifts, but rather direct foreign investment
in its respectable natural and economic resources. The importance
of such support is demonstrated by the example of western European
countries whose reconstructed and mutually connected economies have
made it possible to strengthen and, in some cases, to create, political
systems inspired by the values of liberal democracy. It is no wonder,
therefore, that Croatia expects much from the new Cards Programme
of the European Union and from the mechanisms of the Stability Pact
for South Eastern Europe, in which it is playing an increasingly
important role. Obviously, we are grateful to the Council of Europe's
Development Bank for the approved loans to aid the recovery of the
social infrastructure in war- affected areas and to support the
return of people who had to leave their homes. We also hope that,
as in other countries, it will play an important role in the development
of small and medium-sized enterprises, and thereby at least partly
help to resolve the unemployment problem.

However, the reform-focused undertakings of the new Croatian
Government are not limited to the economy. Croatia’s citizens also
expect social transformation. They have shown that they want to
live in a community whose identity is based primarily on the will
of its members to share the same destiny. The new Croatia – self- confident
and full of the spirit of victory – does not fear the return of
those Croatian citizens, ethnic Serbs, who left the country but
who sincerely want to integrate themselves into Croatian society
and share the destiny of their fellow citizens -I mean those who
truly consider Croatia to be their homeland. Obviously, the transformation
of our society is not a painless process and it is meeting with
resistance from certain parts of the Croatian population. At present,
that is most evident in the reexamination of certain events relating
to the patriotic defence war, one of the constituent elements of
the identity of the Republic of Croatia. However, a Croatia turned
to Europe must have the strength and maturity to face the potentially
negative phenomena of our positive struggle for freedom and independence.
It is, of course, the task of the Croatian judiciary to investigate
possible crimes and, should they be established, appropriately to
punish those guilty of such crimes. Any other conduct would not
comply with the principle of the rule of law and would take Croatia
away from the European family embodied primarily in the Council
of Europe.

The changes that have taken place in Croatia are not confined
to the sphere of internal policy. The most spectacular results of
which the new Croatia can be proud have been achieved in foreign
policy. In Une with the principle of the rule of law, we have established
comprehensive co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia. We have substantially redefined our policy
toward neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina and we fully respect
its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which implies transparent
funding of the institutions of Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats. We
support the return of all refugees without discrimination: Croats
and Bosnians to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Croatian Serbs
to homes they abandoned because of the defeat of Milosevic's imperialist
policy. We have started to play an active and constructive role within
the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe by availing ourselves
of the mechanisms for financing the return of refugees and the reconstruction
of war-devastated areas. Finally, I should mention our truly exemplary relations
with our three north-western neighbours, Italy, Slovenia and Hungary,
with whom we have recently started to co-operate within the scope
of the so- called quadrilateral. The close co-operation and the
degree of mutual trust that prevail are illustrated, for example,
by the border regime under which citizens of those four countries
can cross state frontiers on the presentation only of their identity
cards, and by the agreements – highly appreciated by the international
community – on the mutual protection of minority rights which Croatia has
concluded with Italy and Hungary.

Like the international community at large, Croatia pays close
attention to current political events in the neighbouring Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. We would like that country as soon as possible
to abandon the path of nationalism and isolation and board the train
of genuine democracy and tolerance, so that we can establish good
neighbourly relations and thereby contribute to the stabilisation
of the region. We expect from a democratised Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia a constructive attitude toward the resolution of the
problem of succession within the former Yugoslav federation – that
is, respect of the principle whereby all successor states enjoy
equal rights and obligations. That, of course, implies that the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cannot automatically inherit the
place of the former Yugoslav federation in the United Nations and
other international organisations, and that it has to undergo the
same admission procedures as are applied to other successor states.

The new foreign policy orientation of Croatia has met with
the approval of the international community, which has not waited
long to reward the efforts of the Croatian Government. In late May,
at the ministerial meeting of the members of the North Atlantic
Council in Florence, Croatia was admitted to the Partnership for
Peace, which is the antechamber of the main present-day defensive
alliance. A few weeks later, the Council of Ministers of the European
Union accepted the feasibility study regarding the negotiations
on the agreement on stabilisation and association between Croatia
and the European Union, which are to start in November. In July, Croatia
signed the protocol on admission to the World Trade Organisation,
thereby becoming a member of an organisation that covers almost
90% of world trade.

The most recent achievement is the decision of this Assembly,
adopted two days ago, to end the monitoring process in Croatia.
Allow me to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteurs of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Ms Maria Stoyanova
and Mr Jerzy Jaskiemia, for their efforts in preparing a balanced and
comprehensive report that emphasises the continuing progress in
the development of democracy and the rule of law, without omitting
still outstanding problems. Obviously, the success of those two
rapporteurs was facilitated by the involvement of their predecessors,
Ms Hanna Suchocka, Mr Gunnar Jansson and Mr Jan Figel.

Croatia regards the end of monitoring by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe as the passing of another maturity
test, but we will not by any means stop strengthening our democratic
order and the rule of law. On the contrary, our sleeves will remain
rolled up so that we can meet as soon as possible our remaining commitments
and bring our legislation into line with European standards. In
that effort, we shall continue to count on the precious help of
the experts of the Council of Europe. In that context, allow me
to mention that Croatia has recently enacted two laws on national
minorities and is preparing a third one, which, like its two predecessors,
has been forwarded to the Venice Commission for opinion. All that
demonstrates that Croatia is experiencing the international community
as a genuine partner.

Relations with national minorities are among the best indicators
of our commitment to democracy, tolerance and the principle of good
neighbourly relations. National minorities must be seen as a precious
element in the promotion of international co-operation, and must
never be used as a pretext for territorial claims to parts of other
states. Are not the lethal implications of such a way of thinking
best illustrated by the recent tragic developments in the former
Yugoslavia?

The international community and the international public have,
I dare say, discovered a new Croatia, which, in spite of understandable
difficulties, continues courageously and ambitiously to blaze its
trail towards a better future. All our friends and well-intentioned
sceptics can rest assured that our strong reforming drive is not flagging.
Croatia remains determined, not only to implement its own democratic
and economic transformation, but to influence the democratic transformation
of the region, which, unfortunately, has suffered from aggressive wars,
intolerance and economic regression for too long.

Dear friends, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, I believe that I do not need to stress that Croatia
continues to count on your help. Together, we can contribute to
accelerating the process of stabilisation and Europeanisation of
the longer suffering countries of South Eastern Europe, and heed
the noble and unselfish thought of the French philosopher, Montesquieu:
“If I knew that something benefited my homeland and harmed Europe,
or benefited Europe and harmed humankind, I would consider it a
crime.”

Thank you
very much, Mr Mesic, for a calm, enlightened speech, but one which
also reflected Croatia’s democratic optimism. A number of members
of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you, and
you have kindly agreed to answer them. There are sixteen questions,
which I have grouped according to subject. I will ask the questioners
to put their questions one after the other, and you can answer them
all together. Unfortunately, we will not have time for supplementary
questions.

The first question comes from Mr Hegyi of Hungary and the
Socialist Group, and it is about the European Social Charter.

Mr HEGYI (Hungary)

Your country,
Mr Mesic, has already made progress in several fields, and we understand
the difficulties that it faces. Nevertheless, as Vice- Chairman
of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, may I ask when
you think your country will be ready to ratify the European Social
Charter?

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that this would
be within a short time. Legislation in Croatia needed changing,
and this would happen soon.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you.
We now have four questions about relations between Croatia and her neighbouring
countries. The questions are from Ms Stoyanova of Bulgaria, who
is known to you, Mr Eôrsi from Hungary, Ms Durrieu from France,
who is the leader of the French delegation, and Mr Besostri from
Italy.

I call Mrs Stoyanova, who is a Christian Democrat, first.

Mrs STOYANOVA (Bulgaria)

As a Bulgarian,
I am very proud that the report adopted by the Monitoring Committee
proposes that the monitoring process for Croatia should end. Two
days ago, the Parliamentary Assembly welcomed the significant progress
that Croatia has made. How do you view future relations between Croatia
and Bulgaria, in the light of the opportunities provided by the
Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe?

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary)

I congratulate
the Croatian people on their great achievements. How do you see
the opportunities for your country widening as a result of cross-border
transactions? I should also be interested to hear about your country’s
relations with Hungary.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) (translation)

I pay tribute
to the new determined Croatia. I believe that it will not be long
before we will be speaking about the “example of Croatia”.

Mr President, what is the status of economic, political and
cultural co-operation between Croatia and the neighbouring states?
To what extent could this co-operation help to counteract the surge
in nationalism, or even to create a national identity that would
precede European integration?

Mr BESOSTRI (Italy) (translation)

In your speech,
President Mesic, you recalled the benefits of the fourway initiative involving
Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary and Italy. It grew into the Central European
Initiative. All the states participating in it are also members
of the Council of Europe. How do you feel about closer cooperation
among these countries? It is clearly in Italy’s interest since we
will be taking over the presidency in January.

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that Croatia enjoyed
excellent political relations with Bulgaria. There was scope for
improvement of economic links. He would be visiting Sofia soon accompanied
by leading businessmen to explore new possibilities for co-operation.
Croatia had excellent relations with Hungary in all areas, including
inter-ethnic co-operation. Croatia had a large community of ethnic Hungarians.
Such national minorities must become a bridge for co-operation.
Hungary had an excellent record as a refuge for displaced persons
of all ethnic groups. Economic co-operation was now also progressing
– a motorway was being built across the frontier, and he hoped it
would ultimately lead to Budapest. Railway finks were also being
developed.

Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were dealing with the outstanding
bilateral questions. The war had been fought over territory, but
Croatia respected the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and he could envisage no difficulties. The Dayton Accord on the
return of displaced persons must be implemented as soon as possible.
Bosnia and Herzegovina also needed considerable help in economic
reconstruction. He expected Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to
advance together towards their long-term goal of EU and Nato membership.
Croatia also had excellent relations with Montenegro, and President
Djukanovic had recently visited Croatia. Economic relations were
developing. He was particularly pleased with the democratization
of Montenegro, and with the apology offered for acts committed by
Montenegrins within the Yugoslav army. Montenegro had promised compensation
for the damage inflicted on Dubrovnik. The two countries were now pursuing
a major tourist initiative in partnership.

Co-operation with Italy was very strong, and there were few
outstanding issues. The rights of the ethnic Italian community,
for example in education, were fully protected.

Mr GOULET (France) (translation)

As a member of
the Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Food, I have had
the advantage of visiting Croatia; furthermore, I led a team of
observers, which made me realise that, apart from the assets it
possessed, Croatia had one major handicap, namely the anti-personnel
mines.

Mr President, how much progress has your country made in destroying
these mines? I am particularly interested in your reply as I am
the rapporteur, in the French Senate, for the bill on the Ottawa
Convention on the destruction of anti-personnel mines.

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said Croatia had taken
all steps in its power to clear land mines, but the number was so
great that it was a very expensive task. The problem was made worse
by the fact that all sides in the conflict had used mines, and many
of them had not been mapped. It was fortunate that there were no
mines in any tourist areas. Croatia was receiving international
assistance, and with this aid he was sure the problem would be resolved.
He mentioned the US matched funding initiative as a particularly good
example.

Mrs SQUARCIALUPI (Italy) (translation)

I should like to
thank President Mesic for already having replied in part to some of
the questions I would have liked to ask him.

I was born in an Italian town which later became Croatian
and this is why I feel so strongly about minority issues.

I would especially like to know about the follow-up to the
Croatian Parliament's law on bilingualism at regional level and
on safeguarding the ethnic minorities' schools.

Another question I wish to put to President Mesic concerns
the right of ownership of property which belonged to Italian citizens
who later left the country. I am aware that this is a tough problem
that is hard to solve.

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that the issue
of bilingualism had been taken care of. Italian was one of the official
languages of Croatia and Italian language schools had been opened
with the support of the Italian and Croatian governments. The philosophy
of the government was that people from ethnic minorities were a
vulnerable group and should be treated as such by the use of positive
discrimination. On property rights, he said that most of the problems
had been resolved in an agreement between the former Yugoslavia
and Italy, but he assured the Assembly that any problems which had
not already been addressed would be resolved.

Mr GJELLEROD (Denmark)

Freedom of the
press has always been a matter of concern for us in the Council of
Europe, especially when we are monitoring commitments and obligations
with regard to membership of the Council of Europe. In reports on
Croatia in recent years, we have learnt about many problems in Croatia,
but things have changed there now. However, I was surprised to hear
that there have been some problems in Croatia recently with distributing
newspapers. I would like to hear your comment on that. Thank you.

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that there was
no longer control of the media in Croatia, but some newspapers seemed
to be operating a sort of self-censorship. This was an unwelcome hangover
from the previous regime. The new government wanted the press to
be free, believing that that was the basis of a free society. If
newspapers were not distributed they would be a dead letter. This
problem would be reviewed within the privatisation process.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you,
Mr Mesic. We have two questions on the Venice Commission. I call
Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) (translation)

Mr President,
my point concerns co-operation with the Venice Commission – a question
you mentioned in your speech. Perhaps you could tell us where the
problems were, whether you have trouble justifying this to the public
and parliament, and whether you now find it easier to work with
the Commission.

Mr JASKIERNIA (Poland)

I cordially thank
you for the kind words you addressed to me as the co-rapporteur of
the Monitoring Committee. I was proud that the Parliamentary Assembly
unanimously accepted the report, but, as you know, legal and constitutional
issues remain, including issues to do with national minorities.

The Venice Commission offered three important opinions. I
should like to know how you envisage further development of co-operation
with the Monitoring Committee and the Venice Commission, and to
what extent the Government of Croatia will be ready to accept the
Venice Commission's advice.

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that Croatia had
cooperated with the Venice Commission so far and would continue
to do so. His foreign policy adviser was a member of the commission. The
assistance that had been provided by the Venice Commission for the
Constitutional Court had been welcome. He assured the Assembly that
Croatia would accept the proposals of the Venice Commission constructively.

Mr BARSONY (Hungary)

First, Mr Mesic,
I congratulate your country’s efforts and achievements over the past
couple of months. Secondly, do you believe that Croatia is fully
fulfilling its obligation towards a vast number of refugees? Do
you think that you receive adequate and satisfactory support from
the international community?

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

replied that it had
been accepted in principle that all refugees must be allowed to
return and should be able to return to a position in a democracy.
Croatia was providing housing without discrimination. For the repair
of the economy it needed help from the international community.
Housing was not enough without schools and work. He encouraged the
flow of capital into Croatia which would help the creation of new
jobs.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal)

I was in your
country recently, Mr Mesic, and I saw for myself how your leadership
is providing democratic progress for the Croatian people. I testified
to that in the Monitoring Committee.

What is your opinion on the role of Kfor, Mr Mesic, given
the recent evolution in Kosovo? Do you think that the new leadership
of Belgrade will accept self-determination or a more advanced form
of self-government for pluriethnic Kosovo?

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

replied that Milosevic
first of all destroyed Kosovo and brought down the leadership of
Montenegro. The war had been brutal and Milosevic had had a horrible plan
to clear Kosovo of Albanians, drive them from their homes and resettle
Croatian Serbs. The international community had prevented genocide,
but it was now necessary to establish a community which could function. All
had drawn lessons from this and wished to function as a democracy.

THE PRESIDENT

I do not
see Mr Lachat or Ms Vermot-Mangold, so I call Ms Zapfl-Helbling.

Mrs ZAPFL-HELBLING (Switzerland) (translation)

President
Mesic, I am also very impressed by the social progress your country
has made recently. Now that the elections have given your party
a chance to lead Croatia into a new future, I should like to know
how, and to what extent, you are involving the defeated party in
the new structures and in building democracy. I find recent media
reports disturbing. Is it true that experienced staff are being
got rid of, because of their party allegiances? Is this not a little
reminiscent of the old communist way of doing things?

Mr Mesić, President of Croatia (interpretation)

said that in Croatia
after the election, whoever had the parliamentary majority set up
the government and the institutions. There had been no discrimination. Previously
many positions had been occupied on the basis of party allegiance.
It was now done on the basis of competence.

THE PRESIDENT

Thank you,
Mr President.

We have now reached the end of our dialogue with Mr Mesic.
We thank you very much for answering our questions with the clarity
and directness that are clearly your hallmark.